If I was on VM-Ware's executive team, I'd be seriously thinking about filing an anti-trust complaint and the open source community should be thinking about whether submarining virtualbox is worth what Microsoft is doing here.
It's great and seamless, just pass `-accel whqx` (instead of `-accel hax` or `-accel kvm`).
There are working binaries here: https://shadycode.com/qemu-binaries-for-windows-64-bit-with-...
To me, it seems like the use of Hyper-V was probably necessary to get the tight integration they needed to make the use of WSL 2 as seamless as it is today with the lightweight containers.
VBx also have some extra goodies like the built-in DHCP-server, host-only networking and so on which Hyper-V seems to be lacking.
Wait really? That doesn't seem right, why would they have the host running under part of hyper v when hyper v is optional? This would mean the entire foundation shifts when you enable or disable hyper v
To say nothing of the madness of using it on a laptop with several network adapters when the guest OS only wants to acknowledge one.
I concurrently build vagrant boxes (using Packer) for VirtualBox, VMWare and Parallels on macOS.
My point is that it's fundamental to the way the tech works.
Sure, a level 1 HV makes a lot of sense for a VM host.
For this, not so much.
Most likely in the next few years Hyper-V will become non-optional and Windows will always be virtualized when you run it. That's a big architectural shift that will enable lots of cool new scenarios, but it requires a level 1 hypervisor.
But sure, keep down voting because someone said your dumpster fire OS is crap.
(and yes, ESXi is a type 1 hypervisor--it's definitely something Microsoft could enable more broadly, instead of limiting the scope to Hyper-V nested setups)
I'm learning a lot from this conversation, thanks.
(Not sure about nesting other hypervisors.)
I've been doing that for years now (I originally built my own Docker client binary for the Mac and pointed it to a Linux box, did the same when I ran Parallels on my Mac, and still do it occasionally with ARM boxes at home). People forget that Docker was designed as a client-server solution, and that the server bit works fine.
You can ask your sysadmins to set up a VMware instance running boot2docker and link it directly to your Windows workstation.
You mean the product they've all but abandoned?
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/vmwar...
>submarining virtualbox
Oracle will manage that on their own regardless of what Microsoft does. They already started by making the extension pack free to download but licensed so they can catch unsuspecting users in one of their famous audits.
The article is about two things:
1. WSL 1 was not enough to run docker on it 2. WSL 2 is what was needed and with it Docker can use it and replace the Linuxkit based bits it currently ships, and get other improvements along with it.